He also emphasizes the crazy premise that wealth is a set pie and that the only way for some to become wealthy is for others to become poorer, which is the foundation of the candle makers' argument. Bastiat asserts that the contrary is actually true. I am in agreement with Bastiat’s argument, as the poor of the 21st century are far better off than the poor of the 19th century.
I agree with your stance that the poor in the 21st century is way better off than the century before, illustrating that even the poor and making progress since the beginning of time. On the other hand, this is due to the economy changing. For example, minimal wage might have increased of a few decades but that is due to inflation and the cost of goods increasing. So yes, they may be better off but that does not mean it is any easier then the previous years. As you stated a few lines further than for someone to become rich is for someone to become poorer is a tricky topic. There is the sang that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer which I think is true to some degree. Sure, some of the huge companies get rich by us spending our money; however, there are far more opportunities for poor to get rich without helping the rich. Especially in todays world where it seems like a middle school can become a millionaire. I would have to disagree with you when you stated
Bastiat asserts that the contrary is actually true. I am in agreement with Bastiat’s argument, as the poor of the 21st century are far better off than the poor of the 19th century. Think about what being poor meant to a person during the industrial revolution. Being poor meant that each person worked 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week in horrid conditions. Now the poor have access to the internet, which arguably has made success more egalitarian, and the worst job is flipping burgers and handing out overpriced coffees for 5 days a week. Based on my experience working at Starbucks, I did not risk having my hand chopped off daily like many workers did in the textile industry.
Sure it seems more dangerous but the world as a whole back then was more dangerous than it is now. If you look at the poor back then, it is equivalent to the poor now, the only difference is the world has changed drastically. Sure, the poor could have their hands chopped off during work, but most people that are considered poor are taking manual labor jobs that pose just a great of a threat than back then. I would also have to disagree with you stance involving the company Apple. Sure you get endless resources that can help you improve your overall life; however, there is no denying that technology is put a hold on may individuals IQ. I would like to say that more than not, people with iphones are using them in negative ways rather than positive ways. Children are spending hours upon hours on social media which hurts individuals in many way. They use there phones to their advangtage with homework as well. All you have to do is type in the question and the answer appears in less then 3 seconds. I do agree that the government should help citizens get resources rather than shut them off due to it being from a foreign country. I agree that the law is every kind of greed, because laws put a restriction on individuals, and those who make the laws are somehow above the law because they created them. Even though we may had our differences, I loved reading your paper, for it gave me a more open-mind about the article.